It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 596
377
<< 593  594  595    597  598  599 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
What's more, in addition to the 400,000 who were producing equipment capable of being flown, you would need an army of special effects artists, model builders, cameramen, set construction crews, etc.


Models? Like this model?





posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No.

www.youtube.com...


(I abbreviated the link to pertinent YouTube video, to save thread space).

Goody!! Thanks, always like to find new sources, even if from YT, to prove the reality of Apollo!!


So. let's see...Traverse Maps, in that one scene example were placed under the seat, for safekeeping. So they "....wouldn't bounce out." That "bounce"-ing bit is what I was talking about, and how unsecured objects can move around, in a moving (and bouncing) vehicle. Really, is it required to dig into semantics, and extremely minor insignificant details, in order to cling to the fantasy of "faked" Apollo Lunar missions??

RE: the Traverse Maps...I'll keep searching (you can help) because it is reasonable that there would have been some sort of lanyard, as a way to keep them from falling out and getting lost, over the many KMs of travel. Peripheral vision was hampered by the helmets, ya know.

They might even have used that "magic" stuff that all Astronauts were enamored with, back then...Velcro. It was actually not yet commonly available to the public back then. (Part of why there was a bit of mystique on "Star Trek", in the late 60s. Trivia: Velcro was used to hold some props, like phasers and communicators, to costumes...to make it "futuristic". The sound department had fits with the 'r-rrripping' noise, though.....
).

So, a removable lanyard, with a Velcro enclosure, would be very likely, and logical. The Traverse Maps had to be removable, as they used them as reference off of the Rover, when walking (or shuffling) to where they needed to go.

But, based on my other ideas (which you "conveniently" snipped), I'd say that one image of something in the edge of frame was a cuff checklist. (Might even have been Jack's. On his left wrist?)

BTW....during that Mission Time, per the transcript....I wonder if the TV camera was on, and if there are video recordings that depict that same event? Certainly would then rule out the "cinematic flags" for "lighting" notion. Do I have to check? Or, has anyone else looked into that already??


PS, per another post you wrote: When you're snapping photos in quick succession, things can get in the way, and can get there so quick that you fire the shutter trigger on the camera, and coincidentally the thing that might "bounce" up into frame manages to show up at about same moment. It's called "life" and "reality"......




edit on Wed 5 October 2011 by ProudBird because: Words....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FoosM
 



No.

www.youtube.com...


(I abbreviated the link to pertinent YouTube video, to save thread space).

Goody!! Thanks, always like to find new sources, even if from YT, to prove the reality of Apollo!!


So. let's see...Traverse Maps, in that one scene example were placed under the seat, for safekeeping. So they "....wouldn't bounce out." That "bounce"-ing bit is what I was talking about, and how unsecured objects can move around, in a moving (and bouncing) vehicle. Really, is it required to dig into semantics, and extremely minor insignificant details, in order to cling to the fantasy of "faked" Apollo Lunar missions??

RE: the Traverse Maps...I'll keep searching (you can help) because it is reasonable that there would have been some sort of lanyard, as a way to keep them from falling out and getting lost, over the many KMs of travel. Peripheral vision was hampered by the helmets, ya know.


What you are looking for is there in the video.
Near the end.
You can see how the maps were fastened.
That there would be no bouncing.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

BTW....during that Mission Time, per the transcript....I wonder if the TV camera was on, and if there are video recordings that depict that same event? Certainly would then rule out the "cinematic flags" for "lighting" notion. Do I have to check? Or, has anyone else looked into that already??


I did check some footage, didnt see the effect.
But maybe its there in other reels.






PS, per another post you wrote: When you're snapping photos in quick succession, things can get in the way, and can get there so quick that you fire the shutter trigger on the camera, and coincidentally the thing that might "bounce" up into frame manages to show up at about same moment. It's called "life" and "reality"......



Reality is that the cameras were slow.
There was no quick succession snapping of photos.
It took about a full second just for the film to advance.
And we are talking about astronauts manipulating pressurized gloves.
Astronauts who complained of tired hands and bruised fingers.

Speaking of which, why waste so many photos taking photos of the traverse?
You can barely make anything out in the photos.

edit on 5-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
There's some gatekeepers working for NASA that edited every single image before release.

I will post some stuff later today in a new thread that shows fake images and how they edit them to look real. Was afraid to post this earlier but I guess it might be good to get some answers.

From all my time looking and researching I could never find any evidence we were really up there. Images I have are from apollo 16 so it would mean all prior flights have been manipulated.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Well that has been tried already and noone has produced anything. Feel free to try thought. Looking forward to it.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Hey, gang! Check out our reviews:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

What difference does it make whether they collected their paycheck from NASA or from Grumman? All of them had access to plans, specifications, tolerances. Any of them would know if what they were being asked to produce were in some way suspicious. Even the seamstresses at Playtex would wonder why they were being asked to make one set of "museum quality" space suits and another set of "special effects ready" space suits. What's more, in addition to the 400,000 who were producing equipment capable of being flown, you would need an army of special effects artists, model builders, cameramen, set construction crews, etc. Here's a partial list of personnel involved in 2001: A Space Odyssey:



Art Department
Brian Ackland-Snow .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Martin Atkinson .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Frank Bruton .... property master (uncredited)
Wally Bull .... master plasterer (uncredited)
Chris Burke .... stand-by painter (uncredited)
R. Burton .... engineering draughtsman (uncredited)
Roy Cannon .... stand-by props (uncredited)
Roy Carnon .... scientific design specialist (uncredited)
Reg Carter .... stand-by carpenter (uncredited)
Peter Childs .... draughtsman (uncredited)
John Fenner .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Alan Fraiser .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Dick Frift .... construction coordinator (uncredited)
Anna Garrett .... art department typist (uncredited)
Henry Gomez .... stand-by plasterer (uncredited)
John Graysmark .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Les Hillman .... moon construction engineer (uncredited)
Jack Holden .... set dresser (uncredited)
James Holmes .... stand-by stagehand (uncredited)
Tommy Ibbetson .... stand-by props (uncredited)
Bill Isaacs .... production buyer (uncredited)
P. Jarratt .... engineering draughtsman (uncredited)
Theresa Kendall .... art department secretary (uncredited)
Phil Lanning .... stand-by props (uncredited)
Malcolm Legge .... stagehand carpenter (uncredited)
Robert T. McCall .... conceptual designer (uncredited)
Jumbo Miall .... drapes (uncredited)
Liz Moore .... designer: Star Child (uncredited)
Olivier Mourgue .... interior designer: Discovery (uncredited)
Stan Odgen .... plasterer's laborer (uncredited)
G. Payne .... moon construction engineer (uncredited)
Anthony Pratt .... sketch artist (uncredited)
Tony Reading .... draughtsman (uncredited)
John Rose .... technical illustrator (uncredited)
John Siddall .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Wallis Smith .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Penny Struthers .... art department assistant (uncredited)
Alan Tomkins .... draughtsman (uncredited)
Gus Walker .... TMA-1 construction manager (uncredited)
Frank Willson .... draughtsman (uncredited)


Special Effects by
Stanley Kubrick .... special photographic effects designer
Stanley Kubrick .... special photographic effects director
Ron Ballanger .... special effects technician (uncredited)
Les Bowie .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Colin Brewer .... special effects coordinator (uncredited)
Ted Creed .... special effects engineer (uncredited)
Bob Cuff .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
Roger Dicken .... special effects artwork (uncredited)
Wally Gentleman .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Denis Hall .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Jimmy Harris .... special effects (uncredited)
Fred Heather .... special effects (uncredited)
Graham Hooper .... special effects stills printer (uncredited)
Garth Inns .... special effects (uncredited)
Brian Johnson .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
Valerie Kent .... special effects department secretary (uncredited)
Antonio Margheriti .... special effects (uncredited)
Dan McGowen .... special effects stills printer (uncredited)
Curly Nelhams .... special effects (uncredited)
Hilary Ann Pickburn .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
George Pollack .... special effects coordinator (uncredited)
Douglas Potts .... special effects model maker (uncredited)
Joy Seddon .... special effects assistant (uncredited)
Charles Staffell .... special effects supervisor (uncredited)
Delia Tindall .... special effects department secretary (uncredited)...



How many (or which) of those people also worked for NASA?
By the way, the seamstress would not know why she is making "special effects" ready.
Need to know... need to know.



edit on 5-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Yes! another related 'young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!' Thread

We can't have enough of these, i'll say.

Educating the world this very big lie from NASA which is called 'The apollo moon hoax'



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Hey, gang! Check out our reviews:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






Its not uncommon to get long threads regarding the moon-landing.
There are so many aspects to the program to look into and discuss.

I think it ranks in the top 5 conspiracy theories of all time.
The difference is, "disaster" type conspiracy theories tend to be more looked into than those that are positive in nature. I mean, who doesn't want man to have walked on the moon? However, its a Trojan Horse. If you gladly accept it as fact, the lies will corrupt you from the inside.


edit on 5-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Its not uncommon to get long threads regarding the moon-landing.
There are so many aspects to the program to look into and discuss.


Then why do you keep repeating the same things over and over again?

1. This picture looks "fake."
2. Why are there no stars?
3. Why did they take so few pictures?
4. How did they take so many pictures?
5. Why didn't they fry in the Deadly Radiation?
6. Werner von Braun was a Nazi.
7. Everything that every government on Earth since the beginning of time has said is a lie.


I think it ranks in the top 5 conspiracy theories of all time.
The difference is, "disaster" type conspiracy theories tend to be more looked into than those that are positive in nature. I mean, who doesn't want man to have walked on the moon? However, its a Trojan Horse. If you gladly accept it as fact, the lies will corrupt you from the inside.


Whereas if you reject it, the lies of the Hoax Propagandists will corrupt you from without.
edit on 5-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



How many (or which) of those people also worked for NASA?


That's your job. Why don't you look into it after you've found those photos of the CSM skulking around in low Earth orbit when they were supposed to be on the way to the Moon?


By the way, the seamstress would not know why she is making "special effects" ready.
Need to know... need to know.


The seamstress would know that some of the suits were made to a narrow tolerance, whereas others had significant alterations to allow the attachment of wires and so forth. Unless you're postulating another army of seamstresses who were "in on it." Every time you try to claim that only a small handful of people were in on it, the number skyrockets dramatically to support the claim!
edit on 5-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



The suits were around 200 lbs. Even under lunar gravity, that's still 60+ lbs of weight. If you think that's nothing, try carrying it for hours on end.


All your debating and you don't know Luna gravity..


And 3 blind little fools stared that ridiculous post..

edit on 30-9-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)
You're right, I miscaluclated. It's closer to 33 pounds, carried for hours, in a tight suit with extremely limited mobility.

If you think that's nothing, find a 3-year old, and carry him piggyback for several hours. You can't sit down. You can't put him down. You can't even hand him to someone else. Good luck!



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by 000063
 



The suits were around 200 lbs. Even under lunar gravity, that's still 60+ lbs of weight. If you think that's nothing, try carrying it for hours on end.


All your debating and you don't know Luna gravity..


And 3 blind little fools stared that ridiculous post..

edit on 30-9-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



The average rifle platoon soldier's load at the JRTC is 91 pounds. ...........and carry's it all day.

LINK
SJ wanted to know what heavy objects the astronauts would've been fighting the suits to lift. I answered; the suits themselves. The exact rate really isn't relevant; it's heavy.


Originally posted by webstra
DJW001's Question :


I dont think you answered that question. Are you really Jarrah White? I don't think you have answered that question. Do you want me to be? Everyone, note how FoosM does not answer the question, then posts his usual diversion-spam.


FoosM's Answer :


Its a question I recall giving an answer to long time ago. So lets get back on topic. Because there are real issues and questions not being addressed.


You don't read any posts of FoosM 000063 ?
edit on 30-9-2011 by webstra because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-9-2011 by webstra because: (no reason given)
Not any ones where he answers the question no. However, I am absolutely certain that FoosM believes he answered the question at some point. The alternative is that he's outright lying.
edit on 2011/10/5 by 000063 because: +



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats some serious load of information you just provided SJ, great stuff!
Yes, 'load' seems an apposite term.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

"Someone close to the president did...something that may not have been entirely above-board! Therefore the entire moon-landing program was a hoax!"


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Welcome to the thread
Nice post, nice presentation. I look forward to seeing more of your critical analysis.
But have you ever considered the possibility that everything you know might be wrong?
Rather hypocritical of you.


reply to post by FoosM
 

The Russians looked at and confirmed the moon rocks against their own, and literally dozens of countries have had access to them, not to mention the stolen rocks. If NASA's fakes were so good, why has no one even been able to replicate them?

Not to mention the independent observatories and individuals who collected evidence the missions, like the HAM radio operators, or the Aussie observatories, or the people who broke into the observatories line back to the US and watched video of Apollo before even NASA had it. I have informed you of this before. You are either incapable of retaining the information, or outright lying.

reply to post by FoosM
 


You mean they didn't hire someone to do a job until they hired someone to do that job.

That's not stupidity. That's human resources.


reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Why? Someone had to do it.


reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Not exactly, SJ. My position is that the 400K people with the most knowledge of Apollo on the face of the Earth would all have to be fooled, coerced, or complicit, as well as the millions of unwashed masses. I don't have any comment on their heroism, dedication or patriotism. That's a straw man. So is saying 34K worked for NASA directly, which is still a really big number. The other 300K+ would've been contractors and suchlike, lots and lots of them very smart and aware of the capabilities of what they were working on.

You don't need all of them to decide to expose the hoax, you just need one. What usually happens, however, is that more WBs come out of the woodwork after the first guy.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FriendlyGopher
 




There's some gatekeepers working for NASA that edited every single image before release.


Oh? You don't say........even all of the live TV video broadcasts? Quite a feat for the late 60s - early 70s, since it can't yet be done today. Oh, and all the 16mm movie film, too? Frame by frame, I suppose.......

Really, a declaration of that magnitude had better have unassailable "proof" to back it up.

Can't wait to see it.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
All the lunar landings happened under Richard Nixon.
And the program was originated under Eisenhower and VTEC kicked in yo when JFK got behind it.

You can spam "Nixon...Nixon...Nixon" all you like. It doesn't prove wrongdoing, chicanery, or misdeed.


Originally posted by FriendlyGopher
There's some gatekeepers working for NASA that edited every single image before release.
Bald assertion.


I will post some stuff later today in a new thread that shows fake images and how they edit them to look real. Was afraid to post this earlier but I guess it might be good to get some answers.
If you use Photoshop or any computer-aided imaging program, I reserve the right to laugh at you.


From all my time looking and researching I could never find any evidence we were really up there. Images I have are from apollo 16 so it would mean all prior flights have been manipulated.
The definition of a composition fallacy. "I think photos from one mission were faked, so they were obviously all faked!"


Originally posted by FoosM
How many (or which) of those people also worked for NASA?
By the way, the seamstress would not know why she is making "special effects" ready.
Need to know... need to know.


edit on 5-10-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
At the very least, FoosM, you are ending up with people making suits vastly different from the specs they've been told are the official ones. And what would they tell these seamstresses, exactly? There would be no need for NTK security on this type of project, at that level; the Reds, if you'll pardon the expression, had or could have the matter stitched up by their intelligence. Did any of the seamstresses--anyone at Playtex--say doodly-squat about running headlong into security clearance restrictions in the past 40-odd years? Unless the knowledge of the security clearance itself required a security cl--no, no, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by FriendlyGopher
 




There's some gatekeepers working for NASA that edited every single image before release.


Oh? You don't say........even all of the live TV video broadcasts? Quite a feat for the late 60s - early 70s, since it can't yet be done today. Oh, and all the 16mm movie film, too? Frame by frame, I suppose.......

Really, a declaration of that magnitude had better have unassailable "proof" to back it up.

Can't wait to see it.
I'll be right beside you.



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



These are specious arguments. Could also be called a form of sophism. (Same may even use the vernacular, such as "hand-waving distractions", "red herrings" and the Latin, non sequitur).



Reality is that the cameras were slow.


That is a relative term. Non sequitur.


It took about a full second just for the film to advance.


"about" a full second? Just under, just over?? Doesn't matter ---- say this phrase out loud:

'One One Thousand'

There, when you say it at a normal conversational rate you have counted "about" one "full" second.

Now, "count" that one second while watching this.
A typical Hasselblad 500EL model in operation. Similar to the Apollo versions, though not specifically modified on the controls and settings as the Apollo units were:



Of course, when you use a camera, you point (aim), then push the shutter release and while the film is advancing to the next unexposed frame, you are busy moving to compose your next shot. Are you suggesting that Jack (or any of the Astronauts) wold take a picture, then wait a "full" second, before continuing to prepare to take another??



There was no quick succession snapping of photos.


Again, semantics of the word "quick"....a modern motorized top-of-the-line Canon (or Nikon, etc) SLR with a motor-advance feature can move the film very rapidly, in fractions of a second, sure. But, my smart-phone (Huawei M860) has a digital camera that seems to take about just under a "full" second or so, each shot ("one one thousand"...
).

That facts are the facts, you cannot refute them (no matter how hard the effort). The transcript time references are there, (referring to specifically the event from Apollo 17, EVA 2, mission time beginning at 143:50:16 to 143:50:52), as well as the number of photos (#21077 to #21092) SO, that's 36 seconds (conservatively) to take 15 photographs. All while seated, in a vehicle being driven in a circle by someone else.



And we are talking about astronauts manipulating pressurized gloves.


The Hasselblad controls were tailored specifically for that...as you well know!! The gloves were also tailored to each individual Astronaut, they weren't just "One Size Fits All". The design of the gloves was snug, affording as much tactile sensation as was possible, with the materials used. And, they had practiced, practiced and practiced .... and practiced --- and practiced extensively, using the cameras. Both with and without gloves.


Astronauts who complained of tired hands and bruised fingers.


So?? They were manly men. How can a "bruised finger" possibly affect the ability to operate a simple camera shutter release??


edit on Wed 5 October 2011 by ProudBird because: Words spell funny....



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

I think it ranks in the top 5 conspiracy theories of all time.


I agree - it is definitely one of the top 5 theories.

the imagination, the persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is not true, the inability of its beleivers to address factual information, or provide credible evidence themselves - all these aspects are outstanding.

And of course it rates nowhere at all in any list of real conspiracies.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 593  594  595    597  598  599 >>

log in

join